
Book .c .v o 

Copwiglit N° 

('OI'YRIC.HT DKPOSIT. 



The South Was 
Rierht 




^ 



BY S. A. STEEL 



COLUMBIA, S. C. 

THE R. L. BRYAN COMPANY 

1914 









Copyrighted in 1914 

by 

Ella B. Steel. 



JlJN-2 1914 

©CI.A374297 



FOREWORD 

I dedicate this work to the young Americans of 
today. It is a statement of the reasons which led the 
Southern States to withdraw from the Union in 1861. 
These reasons are given more fully in many large works, 
but our young people never see them, and the average 
man is too busy to read them. Northern writers have 
never understood our side, and even when disposed to 
be friendly, are incapable of interpreting our motives. 
Most of the histories used in our schools are too brief 
to give a correct idea of the subject, yet it is very impor- 
tant that it should be understood. I have endeavored to 
put the most important facts in a brief space and simple 
form, with the hope that they will be read by people too 
busy for larger books, and especially by pupils in our 
schools and colleges. I believed in the beginning of the 
war, though only a child, that the South was right, and 
I believe it now. And I believe further that if this 
government lasts a hundred years longer, and continues 
to be a nation of free people, it will be because the prin- 
ciples of political liberty, for which the South contended, 
survive the shock of that tremendous revolution. For 
this reason, if for no other, the position of the South 
should be understood. 

Columbia, S. C. S. A. Steel. 



"I maintain that if the issue of this struggle had from 
the outset been manifest to the whole world, not even 
then ought Athens to have shrunk from it, if Athens has 
any regard for her own glory, her past history, or her 
future reputation." — Demosthenes. 

"We had, I was satisfied, sacred principles to main- 
tain, and rights to defend, for which we were in duty 
bound to do our best, even if we perished in the endeavor. 
* * * If it were all to be done over again, I would act 
in precisely the same manner." — Lee. 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT 



BY 
S. A. STEEL 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT 

In 1861 eleven States of the American Union with- 
drew and formed themselves into the Confederate States 
of America. They did so under the due fonms of law 
without revoluntionary violence, and with the most 
peaceable intention. The United States resolved to 
compel these seceded States tO' return into the Union 
by force of arms. The South resolved to defend her 
liberties. The war between them lasted for four years. 
Nearly four million men were under arms on both sides 
from first to last ; about two thousand battles, engage- 
ments and skirmishes were fought ; neai'ly half a million 
lives were lost ; thousands more were maimed for life ; 
billions of dollars' worth of property was destroyed ; and 
no estimate can be made of the suffering inflicted on 
the women and cliildren of the country, or words be 
found adequate to express the sorrow they endured, the 
loss they sustained in being deprived of educational 
opportunities and the means of social culture, and the 
universal demoralization that ensued. It was one of 
the most gigantic conflicts of history, and one of unpar- 
alleled bitterness. As both sides were in mortal earnest, 
there was no way to stop it until one of the contestants 
was exhausted. 

After four yeai's of heroic stiniggle, the South fell. 
To quote the language of General R. E. Lee, in his 
farewell address to his army at Appomattox, it was 
"compelled to yield to ovei-whelming numbers and 
resources." After a time the seceded States were 
readmitted into the Union. The people of the South, 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

ruined by four years of strife in their territory and the 
destruction of their whole system of life, with all but 
honor lost, indulged in no' idle repinings, uttered no 
unmanly regrets, bore with marvellous patience the 
horrible injustice of the "Reconstiniction," made their 
appeal "to Time," went earnestly to work, and left their 
vindication to the impartial judgment of History, 

Who was responsible for that awful war? As in the 
case of Carthage, so with the South, the victors have 
told the story to suit their own ends. The result is a 
very one-sided and misleading account. Much of what 
the North has written about the war is on a par with 
the testimony of a darky witness in court. "Mose," 
said the lawyer, "do' you understand that you have 
sworn to tell the tmth?" "Yas, sir." "Well, then, 
have you told the jury the truth about this matter.^" 
"Yas, sir, boss, and a leetle the rise of the truth." One 
writer says that the North won, not because it "out- 
fought the South, but because it out-thought the South," 
that it was a victory of mind more than force. I can 
not agree with this. If we must keep the alliteration of 
the phrase, I would say that the North won, not because 
it could outfight the South, but because it did outwrite 
the South. But a vast deal of what they wrote was 
not true. It was pure fiction, like, for example, Whit- 
tier's poem about Barbara Fritchie, and Mrs. Stowe's 
Uncle Tom's Cabin. It v/as false, but it accomplished 
its purpose of hostility to the South. There arc grati- 
fying indications now that the motives of the South are 
beginning to be understood. 

Still we frequently hear it said now that the South- 
erners "believed they were right." But it is nearly 
always said in a connection which makes it mean: Of 

[8] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

course they were wrong, but since they beheved they 
were right, they are entitled to the respect due to sin- 
cerity. This condescending courtesy can never satisfy 
honorable men. As a modus v'wendi it may be accepted, 
and afford a diplomatic ground of meeting, where the 
sentimental "fraternity" of a superficial and emotional 
patriotism may disport itself in iridescent oratory. I 
believe in fraternity, and have tried to contribute to its 
establishment between the North and South ; but if it 
must be obtained at the cost of truth, the price is too 
high. I have respect for the honest Northern man who 
was willing to lay his life on the altar of the Union, and 
this sentiment is perfectly consistent with a deep con- 
viction that the South was right in the essential thing 
for which it fought, the right of self-government. The 
North has told its side ; let us tell ours. We are not 
afraid to take the question into the high court of 
History. 

We are not through with that struggle. Superficial 
people may speak and write about such matters being 
"in the past," and out of relation to the present ; but 
we are dealing with conditions created by that war, 
issues that are still far from being settled. The man 
who thinks the race question is settled is incapable of 
understanding the subject; and that whole question 
grew out of the forcible emancipation of the Southern 
negroes. Had the South been left to' handle that ques- 
tion in its own way, which was one of the reasons for 
secession, who can say that it would not be in a far more 
hopeful state than it is now as a result of the war.^* 
Slavery could not long have survived in the South with 
the sentiment of the whole outside world, and multitudes 
of its own people, against it. It is yet to be seen 

[9] 



THE SOUTH WAS PdGHT. 

whether this government can stand, or float, with tlie 
millstone of the black race about its neck. Nor is this 
the only way in which the problems created by the war 
involve us, and are inextricably identified with present 
day issues. American statesmanship has never had a 
greater task than it has now to preserve the rights of 
the States, which are the bulwarks of our individual 
liberties, under the constant and universal pressure of 
the great centralized power of the Federal nation made 
by the war. The steady encroachment of the authority 
of the general government in every department, legis- 
lative, executive and judicial, especially the latter, on 
the functions of the States, is one of the most dangerous 
tendencies of our political life. And it grew directly 
out of the war. 

I hold, therefore, that it is of the utmost importance 
that this generation of American youths shall have a cor- 
rect knowledge of the war. I do not wish to detract 
from the glory of the North. And as to stirring up the 
passions of the past, no' man in his senses thinks we must 
not study history because some one with a soft brain 
may get mad. Let the heathen rage ; civilized men want 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

To' decide this question we must put ourselves back 
in the circumstances of the Southern people in 1860. 
When I say that the South was right in the great strug- 
gle with the North, I mean that it had both the legal and 
moral right to do what it did. I mean that under the 
circumstances which surrounded it, there vras nothing 
else to do. I think General Lee expressed it exactly 
when he said : "We had, I was satisfied, sacred principles 
to maintain and rights to defend, for wliich we were in 
duty bound to do our best, even if we perished in 

[10] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

the endeavor." General Lee never changed his mind. 
When it was all over, he said to General Hampton : "If 
it were all to do over again, I would act precisely in the 
same manner." A cause must be supported by some 
very sound reasons when such a man can speak so firmly 
about it. To say that the South was wrong simply 
because the North won, is to cast a serious reflection on 
the intelligence of such men as Lfee, and many others. 
What were the reasons that made General Lee so sure 
that he was right when he led the Army of Northern 
Virginia in battles that tO' the end of time will be the 
study and the wonder of men.-^ Well, I will give you 
some of them. 

But first, as we are to discuss the war, let us decide 
on the name by which we will designate it. This is 
more important than some people tliink. As one emi- 
nently qualified to speak has reminded us, "names both 
record and make history." Names are not arbitrary 
labels, but should express or describe the nature of the 
thing to which they are attached. A whole philosophy 
may be compressed in a name, as, for example, "Ideal- 
ism" or "Realism." So you see a thoughtful man can 
not pass lightly over the matter of a name. This is 
especially true of such an important subject as the one 
I am discussing. We must get a right name. 

The North called the war "The War of the Rebel- 
lion," and gave this name to the official records of it. 
Now, rebellion is forcible resistance to legitimate gov- 
ernment. But, as I hope to show, when the Southern 
States withdrew from the Union, the legitimate author- 
ity of the United States over them ceased, and it was 
not "rebellion" to resist it. This name is unfair to the 



11 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

South, and it is now only used by people who have failed 
to' outlive the prejudices of the Avar. 

Alexander H. Stephens called it "The War Between 
the States," and I am sorry to see that this name has 
been recommended as the proper name by the Legislative 
Committee on the revision of the Constitution of North 
Carolina. This name conveys a wrong idea of the war. 
It was not a war between the States, but between the 
United States and the Confederate States, each acting 
as a nation. It is glaringly inaccurate and misleading. 

By some it is called "The War Between the Sections." 
The objection to this name is that it is too vague, and 
gives no idea of what the war was about. It is not a 
name, only a label. 

By some it has been called "The War of Secession." 
The objection to this name is that it implies that the 
South was responsible for the war, and this is not true. 
The North was the aggressor from first to last. For 
years before the war, it began and carried on an agita- 
tion hostile to the South, and when the South sought to 
protect itself by peaceable withdrawal, it invaded the 
South with fire and sM'ord. That name is misleading. 

The name most generally used, and which Congress 
has decided shall be the official name, is the "Civil War." 
I can not agree with Congress. A civil war is a war 
between two factions contending for the control of the 
same government, like the war between CfEsar and 
Pompey in Roman history, or the war between the 
Houses of Lancaster and York in English history. It 
is evident that this was not the character of our war. 
If the Southern States had fought in the Union it would 
have been a "civil war;" but they withdrew from the 
Union, and organized a separate government. Whether 

[12] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

they had the right to do this does not affect the case; 
the fact is they did it, and that fact makes the phrase 
"civil war" untrue when apphed to our struggle. It 
was a war between two nations. For the four years 
that it lasted, the Confederate States was a real govern' 
ment, possessing all the attributes and exercising all the 
powers of govemment. It was acknowledged and sup- 
ported and defended by its citizens ; it issued money, 
levied taxes, waged war, and was recognized as having 
belligerent rights. I can understand how this name is 
satisfactory to the North, for it concedes all the}^ have 
claimed about the war. The plain logic of it makes it a 
war of "rebellion," the Southerners "rebels," Davis and 
Lee and Jackson "traitors," who^ escaped the usual fate 
of traitors only through the clemency of their con- 
querors. But I can not understand how such a name 
can meet the approval of intelligent Southerners. It 
can be justified only on the basis of Napoleon's sarcastic 
definition of history as "Fiction agreed upon." I never 
use it, and I teach my children not to use it. Its brevity 
may pass it with people who- are in too big a hurry to 
tell the tinith ; but I have passed that point. I pi'efer 
to take a little more time and be right. 

None of these names fit the facts in the case. Then 
what is the proper name for the war? It is this: THE 
WAR FOR THE UNION. That name states the 
tnith about it. The North declared this to be the pur- 
pose of the war; it was begun, continued, and finished 
to presence the Union ; President Lincoln repeatedly 
asserted that this was the paramount issue, to which all 
others were subordinate ; to "save the Union" he delib- 
erately went outside of the Constitution in the exercise 
of arbitrary power ; and if you had asked the men in 

[13] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

blue what they were fighting for, nine out of ten of 
them would have said "to save the Union." 

Moreover, this name expresses the result of the war; 
for it not only brought back into the Union the States 
that had gone out, but it made a new and different 
Union from, the one we had before. It puts the respon- 
sibility, too, where it belongs, on the North — a respon- 
sibility which they are proud to accept, and wliich we 
ought to be perfectly willing to concede to them. The 
South acted from first to last on the defensive ; the North 
was the aggressor. It is all now far back in the past, 
and the clouds of passion have floated away, so let us be 
brave enough to be fair and do each other the justice 
to admit the truth. We will never do that when we call 
the war "the civil war," for that indicts the whole South. 
Whatever Congress may say, I shall call the great strug- 
gle the War for the Union. 

Perhaps there was no campaign slogan more effective 
in the North, nO' appeal to the patriotism of the country 
so useful, no phrases more eloquently employed than 
such terms as to "save the Union," to "preserve the 
Union," to crush "the rebellion that aims to destroy 
the Union." The Southern people were represented as 
seeking to "break up the Union." Now there was not 
one word of truth in such statements. Whatever wc 
may think about the doctrine of secession as a political 
principle, a moment of reflection will disclose the falsity 
of the idea that the secession of the Southern States was 
an attempt to destroy the Union. Did the separation 
of the American Colonies from England destroy the 
British Empire.'' Did the separation of jNIexico from 
Spain destroy the Spanish nation.'' Did Portugal cease 
to exist when Brazil withdrew to become an independent 

[14] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

people? If the South had won in the strugg:le the 
Union Avould have stood just as it did before, only less 
in territorial extent by the area of the seceded States. 
The object of the South was by a peaceable separation 
to govern itself, and deal with its domestic problems in 
its own way, leaving the North to do the same. This 
was not to "destroy the Union." Yet this lie, booted 
and spurred, did valiant service against the South. 
However, it is only one of a multitude of "toads" which, 
when touched by the Ithuriel spear of truth, the cold 
steel of facts, spring into proper satanic shape. 

The subject divides itself into two parts, first, did 
the Southern States have the right to secede, and second, 
did the circumstances justify their exercise of tha right? 
I take the affinnative, and assert that the Southern 
States had the legal right to withdraw from the Union, 
and that the conditions under which they were compelled 
to act justified their withdrawal. I am willing to let 
history decide the question. I am not willing to accept 
the verdict of success. The failure of the South does 
not prove that it was wrong, nor does the triumph of 
the North prove that it was right ; that only proves the 
North was stronger than the South. Success is no test 
of truth; if it is, we can justify some of the most hideous 
tyrannies of the past, from Tamerlane, who built his 
throne on the skulls of his slaughtered victims, down to 
the latest despot who rules by right of the sword. 

Before adducing my proof of the South's legal right 
to withdraw from the Federal Union, let me say that the 
character of the Southern people furnishes a strong pre- 
sumption that they had valid ground for the course they 
pursued. They were an intelligent people. Such men 
as Jefferson Davis, and Robert Tombs, and Lamar, and 

[15] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

Campbell, and Barnwell, and' hundreds besides, were the 
equals in intellectual ability, in capacity to understand 
political government, and in patriotic devotion to the 
principles of republican liberty, of any in the North. 
I think it may be safely asserted that no people on earth 
are more attached to the principles and institutions of 
constitutional freedom, more jealous of their rights 
under the Constitution, or more conservative in their 
spirit in maintaining them, than the people of the South. 
They were misrepresented to the world as a semibarba- 
rous people because they had slaves. A Federal general 
told me that he was born and reared in New England, 
and enlisted in one of the first regiments raised, not only 
for the purpose of saving the Union, but also of liberat- 
ing the slaves and subduing the "barbarians of the 
South." He said that after the war he was put in 
charge of one of the Military Districts of the South, 
and his official duties brought him into' association with 
many of the public men of the Confederacy. He said 
he was amazed tO' find such men. To quote his own lan- 
guage, he said: "I never met a finer type of intelligent 
Christian manhood in my life, and it is still a mystery 
to me how you could rear such men under a system that 
allowed slavery." The Southerners were not imbeciles, 
if the Ambassador to England did write them down as 
such in his ridiculous book. The Southerner, They 
understood what they wanted, and their rights in the 
case. They had good ground for their conduct. ]Men 
like Robert E. Lee knew what they were doing, and why 
they did it. For the honor of their memory let us look 
at some of their reasons. ******* 



[16] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

I assert that the right of a State to withdraw from 
the Union is proved by the nature of the Union when it 
was fii'st formed. 

When the thirteen Colonies won their independence, 
they became sovereign States. "Virginia made a decla- 
ration on the 12th of June, 1776, renouncing her colonial 
dependence on Great Britain and separating herself 
forever from that kingdom. On the 29th of June, in 
the same year, she performed the highest function of 
independent sovereignty by adopting and ordaining a 
constitution prescribing an oath of fealty and allegiance 
for all who might hold office under her authority, and 
that remained as the organic law of the Old Dominion 
until 1829." 

All the other Colonies became sovereign States in the 
same way. These independent States sent delegates to 
a Convention which mad'e a Declaration of Independence. 
This Declaration affirmed that they were "free and inde- 
pendent States." When the War of the Revolution 
closed, they were recognized by England as "free, sov- 
ereign, and independent States." The loose confedera- 
tion which had been formed at first, and which was held 
together only by the necessity of united action in the 
common struggle for freedom, being found inadequate 
for the pui'poses of a Federal government, a new Union 
was formed by the adoption of a Constitution. The 
right of secession was implicit in this document. 

In 1830 Webster made a celebrated speech in reply 
to Hayne of South Carolina. This was an epochal 
speech, and, perhaps, did more than anything else to 
promote and establish the Northern idea of the Union, 
for it became a school classic. Millions of school boys 
declaimed it, and were educated in their political opin- 

[17] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

ions by it. So far as the speech was a reply to Hayne's 
doctrine of Nullification, I think Webster demolished 
him. That doctrine held that a State could declare a 
law passed by Congress null and void in its bounds. I 
do not think such a doctrine can be derived from the 
Constitution, or be harmonized with its principles. But 
Webster was clearly in error when he claimed in that 
speech that the Constitution "emanated immediately 
from the people." Webster misconstrued the words, 
"We, the people," in the preamble to the Constitution. 
On the strength of these words he held that the Federal 
government was "a popular government," "erected by 
the people." 

That is true, but not in the sense in which Webster 
meant it, for he meant, as he said, that it "emanated 
immediately from the people." It did not emanate 
immediately from the people, but mediately from the 
people, acting through the States. Now, if this is true, 
the whole premise of Webster's famous argument is 
false, and the immense conclusions based on it must go 
by the board. This is a daring assertion in view of 
Webster's great fame ; but it is true, nevertheless. Look 
at the facts in the case. When it was decided to create 
a new and stronger Union, Congress recomviended — 
mark that word — to the States that they send delegates 
to a convention, which should "re^^se the Articles of 
Confederation, and report to Congress and the several 
legislatures (italics mine) such alterations and provi- 
sions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and 
confirmed hy the States, render the Feder-"] Constitution 
adequate to the exigencies of government and the preser- 
vation of the Union." The States, as States, took 
action on this recommendation. A majority of the 

ri8i 



THE SOUTH WAS EIGHT. 

States accepted it, and appointed delegates to the Con- 
vention that framed the Constitution. When this Con- 
stitution was finished, it was submitted, not to the people 
en masse, but to the several States for their adoption. 
Their ratification was necessary to give it validity 
and force. The States called conventions to consider 
whether they should adopt it. A majority ratified it, 
but Virginia and New York did so only after long and 
earnest debate, and not until a long time after the others 
had acted. North Carolina and Rhode Island held out 
still longer ; and Mrginia accepted the Constitution only 
on the condition that certain amendments should be 
added to it. Professor John Fiske makes it as clear as 
the sun at noon, in his book, "The Critical Period of 
American History," that the States were the parties to 
the Federal compact, and that without their concur- 
rence there could have been no Union. From all this, 
and much more that might be adduced, I am bound to 
think that Webster's famous postulate that the Consti- 
tution "emanated immediately from the people" will not 
stand the test of facts. History disproves it. The 
Federal Union was created by the American people act- 
ing in their capacity as sovereign States. With all due 
respect to the memory of Webster, I do not see how any 
other conclusion can be reached from the facts. 

But that you may not think this the conclusion of a 
layman, I will reinforce it with the confirmation of two 
minds worthy to rank with Webster himself as political 
statesmen. No man who had a hand in making the 
Constitution was more capable of understanding it than 
Madison. He was there when the Constitution was 
under discussion and was familiar with the purpose and 
spirit of the convention that made it. He derived his 

[19] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

knowledge not from historical records and tradition, as 
Webster did, but from actual contact with the work and 
personal experience in framing the immortal document. 
Madison said : "The assent and ratification of the people, 
not as individuals composing an entire nation, but as 
composing distinct and independent States to which they 
belong, are the sources of the Constitution. It is, there- 
fore, not a national, but a federal compact." That 
flatly contradicts Webster's doctrine that the Constitu- 
tion "emanated immediately from the people." The 
other authority I quote is the Hon. J. L. M. Curry, one 
of the ablest of our Southern statesmen. He said: "It 
(the Constitution) was transmitted to the several State 
Legislatures, to' be by them submitted to State conven- 
tions, and each State for itself ratified at diff'erent times, 
without concert of action, except in the result to be 
ascertained. As the jurisdiction of a State was limited 
to its own territory, its ratification was limited to its 
own people. The Constitution got its validity, its 
vitality, not from the inhabitants as constituting one 
great nation, nor from the people of all the States con- 
sidered as one people, but from the concurrent action of 
a prescribed number of States, each acting separately 
and pretending to no claim or right to act for or control 
other States. That each of these States had the right 
to decline to ratify and remain out of the Union for all 
time to come, no sane man will deny." Dr. Curiy had 
access to the same sources of infonnation as Webster, 
was as capable of understanding the matter, and was as 
loyal to the Constitution ; yet he reached a conclusion 
the very opposite of Webster's. His conclusion has the 
great advantage over Webster, too, in that Curry refers 
to the facts in support of his view, while Webster simply 

[20] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

made the bold assertion without proof. Webster was 
wrong. The States made the Union. 

Furthermore, the States not only created the Union, 
but the record shows that in ratifying the Constitution, 
and forming the Union, they did not extinguish their 
own sovereignty, but on the contrary, definitely rescinded 
to themselves all the powers not expressly delegated to 
the general government; and in particular the right to 
withdraii} from the Union. Look at the facts. When 
Virginia ratified the Constitution, and thus entered the 
Union, she said: "The delegates do, in the name and in 
behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make 
known that the powers granted under the Constitution, 
being derived from the people of the United States, inay 
he resumed by them whensoever the same shall be per- 
verted to their injury or oppression, and that every 
power not granted thereby remains with them at their 
will." There is no ambiguity in that language. It 
shows how Virginia understood her relation to the Union, 
and it is important to keep it in mind ; for it was on 
this very ground that Virginia acted when she seceded 
from the Union. She simply did in 1861 what she 
reserved the right to do in 1788. 

When New York ratified the Constitution, and entered 
the Union, she made it even more emphatic that she 
understood that if the Union was not ti-ue to its purpose 
she could withdraw. Her people said: "The powers of 
government may be resumed by the people whenever it 
should become necessary to their happiness, that every 
power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said 
Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the 
United States or the departments of the government 
thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or 

[21] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

to their respective State governments, to whom they may 
have granted the same." 

What Virginia and New York did all the rest did. 
The Union was, therefore, based upon the mutual con- 
sent of independent States, not to surrender absolutely, 
but to delegate to the Union certain attributes of sov- 
ereignty that were necessary to the general government. 
The supreme attribute of sovereignty they unquestion- 
ably reserved, which was the right to recall the powers 
granted to the general government. We are not now 
discussing the merits of the doctrine of secession ; we 
are simply looking the fact squarely in the face, and I 
do not see how any one can doubt, much less deny, that 
the right inhered in the compact as one of its funda- 
mental principles, and was so understood by all the par- 
ties. In view of the mutual jealousies that prevailed 
at that time between the States composing the Union, 
it is as certain as anything of the kind can be that if 
any State had supposed it could not withdraw fi'om the 
Union, it never would have entered it. Those who 
foiTtned the Union were not blind to the danger this kind 
of association involved ; but no other sort of Union was 
possible then, and this Union was all that was needed 
as long as the States were faithful to the Constitution. 
The great men who built our wonderful Union trusted 
to the patriotism of the people to obey the Constitution 
as the supreme law. And if the North had not violated 
the Constitution, the South never would have invoked 
the legal right of secession to protect herself against 
oppression. But the right was there. 

I think I have established my first point, namely, that 
the risht of a State to withdraw from the Union is 



[ 22 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

proved by the nature of the Union when it was first 
formed. I will now advance to' my second argument. 

The right of the State to withdraw from the Union 
is proved by the fact that this doctrine was held by all 
parts of the country for a long period after the Union 
was formed. 

The fact that the South adliered to this original 
understanding of the Union, and when its rights were 
threatened, actually appealed to it for protection, has 
led many to think that the doctrine of secession was a 
Southern theory. But the truth is that it was not only 
held equally in the North, but New England was the 
first to threaten to put it in use. She did not do so, 
not because she doubted the right, but because her inter- 
ests fortunately did not demand it. It is, perhaps, 
hardly admissible to cite the testimony of Southern men 
on this point; nobody in the South doubted the right of 
a State tO' secede. So I will restrict myself to' the testi- 
mony of Northern men. 

In 1811 a bill was before Congress to admit Louisiana 
into the Union. New England bitterly opposed the bill. 
Josiah Quincy, member of Congress from Massachusetts, 
made a speech in opposition toi the measure. In this 
speech he said: "If this bill passes, the bonds of the 
Union are virtually dissolved. The States which com- 
pose it are free from their moral obligation. And as 
it is the right of all (italics mine), so it will be the duty 
of some to prepare for separation, amicably if they can, 
forcibly if they must." Here we have one of the fore- 
most statesmen of New England asserting on the floor 
of Congress that secession is a right of all the States ; 
and nobody seems to have contradicted him. Nobody 
could contradict him, for at that time everybody 
admitted the right. r ^^ -, 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

In 1828, only two years before his famous speech 
promulgatmg the new doctrine of an "indissoluble 
Union," Webster prosecuted Theodore Lyman, of Bos- 
ton, for libel. Lyman had charged that Webster was 
guilty of treasonable conduct because he had taken part 
in a plot to dissolve the Union which was begun in New 
England in 1807. Lyman was defended by Samuel 
Hubbard, who aftei*ward became a Justice of the 
Supreme Court of Massachusetts. Hubbard held that 
the charge was not libellous, because "a confederation 
of New England States to confer with each other on 
the subject of dissolving the Union was not treason. 
The several States are independent, and not dependent. 
Every State has the right to secede from the Union." 
Here we have a distinct assertion of the right of seces- 
sion by an eminent New England jurist. 

William Rawle was one of the most eminent legal 
authorities in his day. He was for many years Chan- 
cellor of the Law Association of Philadelphia, and the 
author of The Revised Code of Pennsylvania. He was 
the author of a book called "Views of the Constitution," 
which is said to have been a textbook in the West Point 
Military Academy when many of the men who adhered 
to the South in the separation were students there. 
This, of course, gave the doctrines of the book the 
official endorsement of the government. Here is what 
Rawle said about the Union: "The Union was formed 
by the voluntary agreement of the States, and in uniting 
together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor 
have they been reduced to one and the same people. If 
one of the States chooses to withdraw its name from the 
contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of 
doing so; and the Federal government would have no 

[24] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

means of maintaining its claim, either by force or right. 

* * * It depends on the State itself to retain or abolish 
the principle of representation, because it depends on 
itself whether it will continue a member of the Union, 

* * * To deny this right would be inconsistent with the 
principles on which our political systems are founded. 
The right must be considered an original ingredient in 
the composition of the general government, which, 
though not expressed, was mutually understood. * * * 
The secession of a State from the Union depends on the 
will of the people of such State." 

Let me remind you that I am not advocating the 
doctrine of secession. These clear and strong testi- 
monies may unconsciously bias you to that thought. 
The doctrine was shot to death on a thousand bloody 
battlefields, and there is no resurrection for it. What 
I am doing is to prove tO' the young people of today 
that the people of the South in 1861 had the legal right 
to secede. And I think the testimony of these Northern 
men, men who rank among their foremost for ability, 
virtue and patriotism, demonstrate beyond a doubt that 
the people of the North held the doctrine as well as those 
of the South. How could that be "rebellion" and 
"treason" in 1860 which was taught, with the sanction 
of the government, twenty years before in the very 
school which of all others needed to inculcate correct 
ideas of duty.'^ Yet what the government taught was 
truth in 1840 was declared to be rank "rebellion" in 
1860! But let me quote some more testimony on this 
point, the original right of a State to secede, for it is 
very interesting to see how the logic of facts compels 
even the most reluctant to admit it. Truth is mighty 
and will prevail. The satanic proverb may be true, 

[25 1 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

that a He can get around the world while truth is pulling 
on its boots ; but, however slow-footed truth may be, it 
overtakes the lie in the end. Truth has a marvelous 
staying power. "The eternal years of God are hers." 
Did not Gen. Sherman say something about "the 
revenges of history.'"' Well, they are very real. 

In 1860 the South had no more vigorous hater than 
Goldwin Smith. His pen did valiant service for the 
North, and hindered abroad that recognition of the 
Confederate States by foreign powers, which was the 
only chance of success the South had. Yet thirty years 
after the war, when liis passion had subsided, when the 
Falsehood he had defended stood forth, stripped by 
impartial Time of its disguise, he said of Secession : 
"Few who have looked into history can doubt that the 
Union originally was a compact, dissoluble, perhaps, 
most of them would have said, at pleasure; dissoluble 
certainly on breach of the articles of Union." It must 
be very strong evidence to compel that admission from 
such an opponent. Of course it is charitable to think 
that when he was denouncing us in 1860-65 as "rebels," 
"traitors" and semibarbarians, and clamoring for our 
extermination, pleading with England to hands off and 
let Uncle Sam wipe us from the earth — I say it is char- 
itable to think that when he was doing this he had not 
"looked into history." It was the audacity of igno- 
rance. 

Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, who is a senator from 
Massachusetts, wrote the life of Webster in the Amer- 
ican Statesmen Series. In that work Lodge says: 
"When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of 
States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of 
States in popular conventions, it is safe to say that 

[26] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

there was not a mian in the country, from Washington 
and Hamilton, on the one side, to George Chnton and 
George j\Iason, on the other, who regarded the new 
system as anything but an experiment entered upon by 
the States, and from which each and every State had 
the nght peaceably to withdraw, a right which was very 
likely to be exercised." 

I will quote only one more testimony, but that is from 
a man who, though he fought against us, is fair and 
open-minded, and whose manly and honest utterances 
about the South and her great struggle have helped to 
clear the clouds of prejudice from the skies. I mean 
Gen. Charles Francis Adams, President of the Massa- 
chusetts Historical Society. In his noble address on the 
occasion of the Lee Centennial at Washington and Lee 
University, an address noble for its manly frankness 
and fraternal spirit, Gen. Adams said this : 

"The technical argument — the logic of the propo- 
sition — seems plain, and, to my thought, unanswerable. 
The original sovereignty was indisputably in the State ; 
in order to establish a nationality certain attributes of 
sovereignty were ceded by the States to a common cen- 
tral organization ; all attributes not thus specifically 
conceded were reserv^ed to the States, and no attributes 
of moment were to be construed as conceded by implica- 
tion. There is no' attribute of sovereignty so important 
as allegiance — citizenship. So far all is elementary. 
Now we come to the crux of the proposition. Not only 
was allegiance — the ricrht to define and establish citizen- 
ship — not among the attributes specifically conceded by 
the several States to the central nationality, but, on the 
contrary, it was explicitly reserved, the instrument 
declaring that 'the citizens of each State should be 

[27] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens 
in the several States.' Ultimate allegiance was, there- 
fore, due to the State which defined and created citizen- 
ship, and not to the central organization which accepted 
as citizens whomever the States pronounced to he such J" 
(Italics mine.) 

This testimony is all the stronger in that Adams takes 
the other side of the question as to the right of secession. 
Let us admit that there are two sides to the subject. It 
is preposterous to suppose the North did not have some 
ground on which to stand. But so did the South, and 
as far as I have been able to see, the immense preponder- 
ance of proof is on the Southern side. I think I have 
established my second point, namely, that the right of a 
State to secede from the Union was the understanding 
of all parts of the country for a long period after the 
Union was formed. I will now advance to my third 
argument. 

The right of a State to withdraw from the Union, or 
at least the fact of secession, and, by implication, the 
grounds on which it was exercised, is proved by the treat- 
ment of the seceded States after the war. Here again 
let us face the facts. 

Eleven States, acting on their constitutional right, as 
they claimed, by due and proper process of law, reas- 
sumed the powers they had originally ceded to the Fed- 
eral Union, and became what they were in the beginning, 
free, sovereign, and independent States. The North 
denied the right of these States to withdraw, and held 
that a State once in the Union was in forever. This 
was the view Mr. Lincoln held, and on which he proceeded 
to act. According to this view the Confederates were 
a lawless combination of disaffected people within the 

[28] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

States that claimed to have seceded, in rebelhon against 
the legitimate authority of the Federal government, 
which the President was in duty bound to suppress. It 
was to maintain the doctrine that a State could not 
secede from the Union that the North fought the war 
to a finish. The emancipation of the slaves of the South 
was definitely proclaimed as a war measure, and justi- 
fied on the ground that it was necessary to preserve the 
Union. 

Now on this theory, it was self-evident that when the 
lawless combinations in rebellion against the government 
in the seceded States were overcome, and the Federal 
authority acknowledged by all, the States were in their 
former relation to the Union. That had never been 
changed, for, they said, a State in once is in forever. 
Gen. Sherman and Gen. Johnston made their agreement 
for the surrender of Johnston's army on the basis of 
this theory, an agreement which was promptly rejected 
by the authorities at Washington, ostensibly on the 
ground that military commanders in the field could not 
meddle with political matters ; but they really had other 
things in mind. 

This is the place for a good story of Johnston's sur- 
render, told by John S. Wise in his entertaining book, 
"The End of xVn Era." It is a httle long, but will put 
a little spice in the otherwise dry argument. Wise says : 
"Johnston had known Sherman well in the United States 
army. Their first interview near Greensboro resulted 
in an engagement to meet for further discussion the fol- 
lowing day. As they were parting, Johnston remarked : 
'By the way, Cumps, Breckenridge, our Secretary of 
War, is with me. He is a very able fellow, and a better 



[29 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

lawyer than any of us. If there is no objection, I will 
fetch him along tomorrow.' 

"Bristling up, General Sherman exclaimed, 'Secretary 
of War! No, no; we don't recognize any civil govei'n- 
ment among you fellows, Joe. No, I don't want any 
Secretary of War.' 

" 'Well,' said General Johnston, 'he is also a major 
general in the Confederate anny. Is there any objec- 
tion to' his presence in the capacity of major general.'^' 

" 'Oh !' quoth Sherman, in his characteristic way, 
'major general! Well, any major general you may 
bring I shall be glad to meet. But recollect, Johnston, 
no Secretary of War. Do you understand.'" 

"The next day General Johnston, accompanied by 
Major General Breckenridge, was at the rendezvous 
before Sherman. 

" 'You know how fond of his liquor Breckenridge 
was.?' added General Johnston, as he went on with his 
story. 'Well, nearly eveirything to drink had been 
absorbed. For several days Breckenridge had found it 
difficult, if not impossible, to^ procure liquor. He showed 
tlio effect of his enforced abstinence. He was rather 
dull and heavy that morning. Somebody in Danville 
had given him a plug of very fine chewing tobacco, and 
he chewed vigorously while we were awaiting Sherman's 
coming. After awhile the latter arrived. He bustled 
in with a pair of saddlebags over his arm, and apologized 
for being late. He placed his saddlebags carefully upon 
a chair. Introductions followed, and for a while 
General Sherman made himself exceedingly agreeable. 
Finally, some one suggested that we had better take up 
the matter in hand.' 

[30] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 



a iy 



'Yes,' said Sherman; 'but, gentlemen, it occurred 
to me that perhaps 3'ou were not overstocked with liquor, 
and I procured some medical stores on my way over. 
Will you join me before we begin work?' 

"General Johnston said he watched the expression of 
Breckenridge at this announcement, and it was beatific. 
Tossing his quid into the fire, he rinsed his mouth, and. 
when the bottle and the glass were passed to him he 
poured out a tremendous drink, which he swallowed with 
great satisfaction. With an air of content, he stroked 
his mustache and took a fresh chew of tobacco. Then 
they settled down to business, and Breckenridge never 
shone more brilliantly than he did in the discussion which 
followed. He seemed to have at his tongue's end every 
rule and maxim of international and constitutional law, 
and of the laws of war — international wars, civil wars, 
and wars of rebellion. In fact, he was so resourceful, 
cogent, persuasive, learned, that, at one stage of the 
proceedings, General Sherman, when confronted by the 
authority, but not convinced by the eloquence or learn- 
ing of Breckenridge, pushed back his chair, and 
exclaimed: 'See here, gentlemen, who is doing this sur- 
rendering anyhow.^ If this thing goes on, you'll have 
me sending a letter of apology to' Jeff Davis.' 

"Afterward, when they were nearing the close of the 
conference, Sherman sat for some time absorbed in deep 
thought. Then he arose, went to the saddlebags and 
fumbled for the bottle. Breckenridge saw the move- 
ment. Again he took his quid from his mouth and 
tossed it into the fireplace. His eye brightened, and he 
gave every evidence of intense interest in what Shennan 
seemed about to do. The latter, preoccupied, perhaps 
unconscious of his action, poured out some liquor, 

[31] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

shoved the bottle back into the saddle-pocket, walked to 
the window and stood there, looking out abstractedly, 
while he sipped his grog. From pleasant hope and 
expectation the expression on Breckenridge's face 
changed successively to uncertainty, disgust and deep 
depression. At last his hand sought the plug of tobacco, 
and, with an injured, sorrowful look, he cut off another 
chew. Upon this he ruminated during the remainder of 
the interview, taking little part in what was said. 

"After silent reflections at the window, General Sher- 
man bustled back, gathered up his papers, and said: 
'These terms are too generous, but I must hurry away 
before you make me sign a capitulation. I will submit 
them to the authorities at Washington, and let you hear 
how they are received.' With that he bade the assem- 
bled officers adieu, took his saddlebags on his arm and 
went off" as he had come. 

"General Johnston took occasion, as they left the 
house and were drawing on their gloves, to ask General 
Breckenridge how he had been impressed by Sherman. 

" 'Sherman is a bright man, and a man of great 
force,' replied Breckenridge, speaking with delibera- 
tion, 'but,' raising his voice and with a look of great 
intensity, 'General Johnston, General Sherman is a hog. 
Yes, sir, a hog. Did you see him take that drink by 
himself.'" 

"General Johnston tried to assure General Brecken- 
ridge that General Sherman was a royal good fellow, but 
the most absent-minded man in the world. He told him 
that the failure to offer him a drink was the highest com- 
pliment that could have been paid tO' the masterly argu- 
ments with Avhich he had pressed the Union commander 
to that state of abstraction. 

[32] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

" 'Ah !' protested the big Kentuckian, half sighing, 
half gneving, 'no Kentucky gentleman would ever have 
taken away that bottle. He knew we needed it, and 
needed it badly.' 

"The story was well told, and I did not make it pubhc 
until after General Johnston's death. On one occasion, 
being intimate with General Sherman, I repeated it to 
him. Laughing heartily, he said : 'I don't remember it, 
but if Joe Johnston told it, it was so. Those fellows 
hustled me so that day I was sorry for the drink I did 
give them,' and with that sally he broke into fresh 
laughter." 

The story is a fine illustration of the force of 
the Confederate argument. Breckenridge, doubtless, 
shrewdly accepted Sherman's theory of the relation of 
Confederates to the Union, and on that ground but one 
conclusion could be logically reached. Sherman had told 
Johnston "we don't recognize any civil government 
among you fellows," and refused to consent to the 
presence of Breckenridge in his character of Secretary 
of War of the Confederate States. According to Sher- 
man's theory, which was the theory of the Federal gov- 
ernment from the beginning of the struggle, no State 
had left the Union, or could leave the Union. Of course, 
on this theory, the States, as States, were in exactly the 
same relation to the Union as they were before the 
trouble began. So, when the armed resistance to Federal 
authority within their borders ceased, they would logi- 
cally, and naturally, and automatically, resume their 
rights and exercise their powers. No wonder Sherman 
was "abstracted" as he sat in the window. He was 
right ; the truth about their high-handed and unlawful 
conduct demanded "an apology to Jeff Davis" and the 

[33] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

civilized world. Sherman's sword was irresistible ; but 
when the case came into court, the truth was all-powerful, 
and made the victor "absent minded." 

But the government at Washington did not intend 
to' allow the Confederate Secretary of War to win a 
brilliant diplomatic victory. Their argument from the 
first had been the sword, the argument of superior force. 
They had won the case with that argument. The South 
was defeated, exhausted, prostrate, and at their mercy. 
They did not intend to allow it to get upon its feet. 
Revenge and punishment were in order next. 

So they deliberately reversed the theory on which they 
had fought the war to a victorious end, and after spend- 
ing billions of money and sacrificing hundreds of thou- 
sands of lives to uphold the doctrine that a State once 
in the Union was in forever, they declared that the 
seceded States were out of the Union and proceeded to 
readmit them into the Union. I am not now concerned 
with the inconsistency of this course ; but I hold that, 
whatever may have been its motive, its wisdom or unwis- 
dom, it completely admits the paramount position of the 
South^ — that a State could withdraw from the Union. 
I think I have established my third point — namely, that 
the treatment of the seceded States after the war proved 
that a State could withdraw from the Union. I will now 
advance to my fourth argvnnent. 

The right of a State to withdraw from the Union is 
proved by the failure of the government to try Jefferson 
Davis, or any other Confederate officer, when the war 
was over. I admit that this argument is an inferential 
one ; but the facts are so significant that they are of 
great force in the case. 

[34] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

According to the theoiy of the government from the 
beginning to the close of the war, Davis and all other 
Confederates were traitors and were liable to all the 
consequences of treason. During the war they were 
uniformly accused by the North of treason, called 
"rebels" and the war a "rebellion," and public opinion 
clamored for their punishment as "traitors." When 
Davis and other Confederates were captured they were 
thrown into prison and treated as if they were in fact 
traitors. One by one they were released without trial. 
Davis was formally indicted, but was not brought to 
trial. He earnestly desired it, so did his friends, and 
the whole South, confident that he would not only be 
acquitted of treason, but that the result of the trial 
would demonstrate to the whole civilized world the legal 
justice of the Southern cause. After a long imprison- 
ment, Davis was released on bail, and the case against 
him was finally dismissed. 

Why was Davis and the rest of the Confederates never 
tried for the crime with which they were accused with 
such unanimity and vehemence during the war ? It can- 
not be ascribed to magnanimity on the part of the con- 
querors. I wish I could think it was, for it would help 
to clear away one of the darkest blots on the fair name of 
American civilization. But the facts forbid the idea. 
The largest magnanimity of thought about it now, when 
all motive for unjust accusation has vanished in the 
kinder spirit that prevails, is unable to reconcile the 
treatment of Mr. Davis as a prisoner in Foi'tress 
Monroe with the idea of magnanimity. He was held in 
rigorous confinement, compelled to be under a bright 
light and the sleepless eye of a guard night and day ; 
his health was bi'oken and wasted with four years of 

[35] 



THE SOUTH WAS BIGHT. 

anxiety and care ; yet they put handcuffs on his wrists 
and ball and chain on his ankles, not for security, but to 
degrade and humiliate him and the South; they refused 
him all intercourse with his family and friends ; when his 
little three-year-old girl asked "if she might write to 
papa," they consented, provided what she wrote was 
proper for him to read. Instructed by her devoted 
mother, and to be sure that what she wrote would not 
be refused, knowing that just the sight of her hand- 
writing would comfort her afflicted father, the little girl 
copied the twenty-third Psalm, but they refused to allow 
it to go to him. Oh, no ! In the dark souls of the men 
who were in power then there was no thought of clemency, 
and they were as incapable of magnanimity as the Prior 
of the Spanish Inquisition. They tortured Davis with 
a refinement of cruelty that will damn their memory 
forever, and which no effervescence of patriotic twentieth 
centui'y fraternity can expunge. 

Why did they not try him.^ They had everything 
their way except one thing, and they were afraid of that, 
and that was truth. The Sword could slaughter its 
thousands. The Torch could reduce to ashes the sacred 
homes and shrines of the South. A million men in arms, 
the seasoned veterans of a hundred battles, could make 
the nations stand in awe. But the Sword and the Torch 
and the Bayonets of a million men recoiled from the 
adamantine front of Truth as it was represented in the 
frail, emaciated person of Jefferson Davis. The}" could 
persecute him, but they were afraid to prosecute him. 
Justice held her shield above him and they left him. 
Davis had eminent counsel, among them Daniel O'Connell, 
the famous Irish barrister, and his trial would have been 
one of international interest. Secure in the power of 

[36] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

the Sword, the victors were too wise to allow their title 
to be tested b}^ the law before a court of justice. The 
trial of Jefferson Davis would have afforded the South 
a splendid opportunity to vindicate itself before the 
civihzed world, and I have not a shadow of doubt that it 
would have settled the whole responsibility for the war 
where it belonged, on the North, and proved beyond dis- 
pute that they, and not the Southerners, were in 
"rebellion" against the Constitution on v.hich the Union 
was founded in the beginning. 

But enough has been said to show that the States up 
to 1860 had a legal right to withdraw from the Union. 
That right no longer exists, but it did exist then ; and it 
was the definite ground on wliich the Southern people 
acted. The fallacies of the Northern argument against 
it are easily exposed. For example : It was said that 
as the Constitution itself was silent on the question of 
secession, it was a matter of construction, and the North 
had as much right to construe it against secession as the 
South had to construe it in favor of it. The answer to 
that is that it is a principle universally admitted that a 
document must be construed according to the intention 
of those who made it. I have shown in the evidence I 
have given that those who made the Union understood 
that the States had the right toi withdraw from it. When 
the North, therefore, construed the Constitution to 
forbid secession, they did so in violation of the universal 
rule of interpretation of legal documents. The South in 
this respect had the right on its side. 

Again : In his first inaugural address, Mr. Lincoln 
said : "If the United States be not a government proper, 
but an association of States in the nature of a contract 
merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less 

[37] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

than all the parties who made it? One party to a con- 
tract ma}'^ violate it — break it, so to speak — -but does it 
not require all to lawfully rescind it?" 

It is strange that so clear a reasoner as Mr. Lincoln 
undoubtedly was, did not see that the simple and unan- 
swerable repl}^ to that is that it depends on the nature 
of the contract. If when the contract v/as made it was 
understood by all the parties to the transaction that each 
one had the right to withdraw from the contract, and if 
this right was expressly reserved, then a notice of with- 
drawal was a legal dissolution of the compact. Now I 
have shown that all the parties to this Union did under- 
stand when it was first formed that they had the right to 
withdraw, and several of them expressly reseiTed that 
right. It did not, therefore, "require all to' lawfully 
rescind it." Notice of withdrawal was a legal dissolution. 

Again: It was said that the foundel^s of the Union 
intended it to be perpetual. Mr. Lincoln stressed that 
point. He said: "I hold that in contemplation of univer- 
sal law, and of the Constitution, the LTnion of these 
States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not 
expressed, in the fundamental law of all national govern- 
ments." Most assuredly. But there is a difference 
between a "national government" and a Federal govern- 
ment, such as was in the "contemplation" of the framers 
of our Union in the beginning. In a federal union per- 
petuity depends on the fidelity of all parties to the con- 
tract. I take it that no sane man will claim that a 
national government, such as Lincoln had in mind, and 
which he succeeded in establishing, would have met with 
any favor with the founders of the American Union. 
Hamilton, perhaps, dreamed of it and desired it, but 
the solidarity and centralized authority which it involved 

[38] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

too nearly resembled the monarchical power they were 
throwing off for them to favor it. They intended it to 
be perpetual only on the condition that they all obeyed 
the Constitution ; if that fundamental law of the Union 
was disregarded and broken they were absolved and had 
the legal right to withdraw. The idea of unconditional 
perpetuity was read into the Constitution by the North 
long after the Union was fonned. 

The true history of the Union seems to be as follows : 
After the American colonies had won their independence 
from Great Britain, they became sovereign States. For 
the more effective purposes of government these States, 
in their capacity as sovereign States, formed a federal 
union, and adopted a Constitution. This Union was 
intended to be perpetual, but only upon the condition of 
the faithful obserA'ance of the fundamental law of the 
Constitution. They all understood that they had the 
reserved right to withdraw from the Union if the Con- 
stitution was not obeyed. Gradually the idea of a 
national, instead of a federal, compact grew up in the 
North. The economic development of the Northern 
States favored this idea. The great influx of European 
emigration introduced into the North a multitude of 
people who knew nothing of State Rights — had no 
sympathy with the South, were violently opposed to 
African slavery, and to whom the very name of the 
Union was the synonym of the liberty they craved, and 
came to America to enjoy. This idea of a National 
Union, one and indissoluble forever, found an eloquent 
spokesman in Danial Webster, and spread like wildfire 
from New England to California. A whole generation 
in the North was reared up to believe that the Union 
was created immediately by the people, and that it was 

[39] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

supreme over the States, and that loyalty to the Union 
was the first duty of all Americans, On the other hand, 
the South adliered to the idea that the Union was not 
national, but federal, in its nature ; that it was made by 
the States, and had strictly hmited powers ; and tliat if 
the Constitution was violated every State had the right 
to withdraw from the Union. The economic interests of 
the South as an agricultural country favored this 
theory. Generation after generation of Southerners 
from the beginning were reared, and lived, and died in 
this political faith. And they gave it up only when they 
fell bleeding at every pore. This was the difference 
between the North and the South in 1860. 

What part did slavery have in it.'^ A very great part. 
The poor African savages were run down in their native 
jungles by cruel English and American slave-hunters 
and brought to this country in New England ships by 
Yankee slave dealers. They were bought and sold in 
Boston as well as in Charleston. But their labor proved 
unprofitable in the rigorous climate and on the sterile 
soil of New England, while it was highly profitable in 
the South. So the shrewd New Englanders unloaded 
the few slaves they had for good money on the South. 
They then became very virtuous and discovered that 
slavery was a horrible crime, and demanded that the 
South should liberate the slaves. As the North did not 
have slaves and the South did this became a sectional 
issue. It was the North against the South. So they 
grew apart both in their political convictions and in 
their property interests. This went on until the dispute 
culminated in the terrible war for the Union. 

Let me resort to a parable to illustrate the relation 
of the Negro to the struggle. Once there were two men 

[40] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

who were neighbors. They were very friendly for a 
long time, but gradually they became estranged. Mr. 
Smith had a large black dog. He was wortliless to him 
and Smith was anxious to get rid of him. Finding that 
his neighbor, Jones, wanted a dog he sold him his black 
Newfoundland. The dog soon became very useful to 
Jones. He trained him to gO' errands and bring or carry 
packages, and in various ways to' render service. The 
dog was well treated, indeed, he was one of the family, 
and a strong attachment existed between him and all the 
household. This excited the envy of Mr. Smith, who 
was an editor, and he began to wr^ite cruel things in his 
paper about people who made their dogs work. Jones 
was a high-spirited man, and he resented the unjust 
things Smith said. This only made Smith worse. One 
day he came over to Jones' home and said: "Jones, you 
have got to> let that dog go. You shan't make him work 
for you any longer." Jones told Smith that it was none 
of his business ; the law protected him in his right to the 
dog, and he could leave. Smith said he did not care what 
the law said ; there was "a higher law," and he intended 
to see that that dog was turned loose. All this passed 
on the front door step. When Smith attempted to enter 
the house, Jones hit him straight between the eyes. 
Then the fight began. Smith got the worst of it for 
awhile, but he went away and hired a German, an Irish- 
man, a Bohemian and a Negro, and with these to help 
him, he forced his way into Jones' house. All the furni- 
ture was smashed in the stitiggle. Jones' wife and 
children were driven out, and the place was wrecked. 
But they held their ground manfully, the faithful dog 
helping Jones all he could. "Fire the barn," shouted 
Smith, and the Irishman hurled the torch to the barn. 

[41] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

"Burn the house," shouted Smith, and the German set 
fire to the home. Then all of them fell upon Jones, who, 
exhausted bj the unequal and long protracted contest, 
sank under the overwhelming odds. All five of them 
sat on poor Jones, and the big Negro put his foot on 
Jones' neck and spit in his face. When they had 
gratified their anger they made him promise before they 
would let him up that he would not make the dog do' any 
more work. Then they left him. 

In this parable Smith represents the North, Jones 
represents the South, and the dog represents the Negro. 
Jones fought, not to keep the dog, but to defend his 
rights as a man and a free citizen against the impudent 
and lawless intrusion of Smith into his private affairs. 
The North demanded that the South set the Negroes 
free. The South told the North to attend to her own 
business. Then the North resolved to force the South 
to yield to her demand, and the South fought to' a finish 
for her rights. Of course, there should have been no 
fight, for fighting is a barbarous method of settling 
difficulties ; but who was to blame, Jones or Smitli ? A 
man who won't defend his home against the unwarranted 
intermeddling of outsiders is a cowardly wretch who 
deserves to be kicked out of any decent community. I 
think Jones did exactly right. ****** 

Having shown that the States up to 1860 had the 
right to withdraw from the Union, I now take up the 
second part of the subject. Admitting they had the 
right, did the circumstances justify them in exercising 
it.'' Here again I unhesitatingly take the affirmative 
and appeal to the facts. 

In 1860 very few people in the South doubted the 
legal right of a State to secede from the Union ; but a 

[42] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

great many doubted the wisdom of it and earnestly 
advised against it. Jefferson Davis held that a State 
could secede, but he opposed resorting to this extreme 
measure. Mr. Davis was as much misunderstood in the 
North as Mr. Lincoln was in the South. He earnestly 
deprecated an armed conflict with the North, yet he was 
under no delusion either as to^ its certainty in case of 
secession, or as to' its character. In her interesting book, 
"A Diary from Dixie," Mrs. Chesnut relates a conver- 
sation with Mr. Davis just before the battle of First 
Manassas, or Bull Run, as we called it. She says : "In 
Mrs. Davis' drawing-room last night the President took 
a seat by me on a sofa where I sat. He talked for nearly 
an hour. He laughed at our faith in our own powers. 
We are like the British. We think every Southerner 
equal to three Yankees at least. We will have to be 
equivalent to a dozen now. After his experience of the 
fighting qualities of Southerners in Mexico' he believes 
that we will do all that can be done by pluck and muscle, 
endurance and dogged courage, dash and red-hot 
patriotism. And yet his tone was not sanguine. There 
was a sad refrain running through it all. For one 
thing, either way, he thinks it will be a long war. That 
floored me at once. It had been too long for me already. 
Then he said, before the end came we would have many 
a bitter experience. He said only fools doubted the 
courage of the Yankees or their willingness toi fight when 
they saw fit. And now that we have stung their pride 
we have roused them till they will fight like devils." I 
think that puts Mr. Davis in a new light to some people. 
Instead of being the rabid fire-eater and over-confident 
revolutionary leader many have supposed that he was, he 
appears to have taken a very sober and sensible view 

[4'3] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

of the situation, to have fully appreciated the character 
of the Northern people and to realize the true nature of 
the struggle on which the South had entered. 

General R. E. Lee was opposed to secession. He did 
not believe in it as a remedy for our wrongs, and said 
"secession is nothing but revolution." But we must 
always remember, when Ave say General Lee did not 
believe in secession, that he did not mean he did not 
believe the State had the right to secede. His conduct 
proved that he did believe it, and he said so. He said: 
"The act of Virginia in withdrawing herself from the 
Union carried him along as a citizen of Virginia, and 
her laws and acts were binding on him. I and my people 
considered the act of the State legitimate, and that the 
seceding States were merely using their reserved rights, 
which they had a legal right to do." So firmly con- 
vinced was General Lee of the justice of the Southern 
cause that he did not consider the consequences of the 
struggle. Succeed or fail, duty demanded that we defend 
our rights. He said: "We had, I was satisfied, sacred 
principles to maintain and rights to defend, for which 
we were in duty bound to do our best, even if we perished 
in the endeavor." This was said on the eve of Appo- 
mattox, when the ruin of the cause was unmistakable, 
and said by a man who never spoke at random. After 
the war, when he had time to review it all and the 
leisure and calm needful for safe conclusions, he said : 
"I fought against the people of the North because I 
believed they were seeking to Avrest from the people of 
the South their dearest rights." He said to General 
Hampton : "If it were all to do over again, I would act 
in precisely the same manner." That does not sound 
like he ever had any doubts about the righteousness of 

[ 44 ] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

the cause. Yet General Lee, after the war, testified 
before the Committee on Reconstruction a.s folloAvs: "I 
may have said and I may have beheved that the position 
of the two sections which they held tO' each other was 
brought about by the politicians of the country ; that 
the great masses of the people, if they had understood 
the real question, would have avoided it. * * * I did 
believe at the time that it was an unnecessary condition 
of affairs and might have been avoided, if forbearance 
and wisdom had been practiced on both sides." It would 
be hard to frame a more truthful statement of the case. 

But not only was the wisdom of secession doubted 
among the prominent leaders, many among the rank 
and file of the people doubted it. We lived in Mississippi 
and my father was a private citizen and a Methodist 
minister. He believed the State had the right to secede, 
but he regarded the secession movement as little short of 
political madness. He clung to the Union and earnestly 
opposed secession. He continued to oppose it long after 
Mississippi had seceded, and with such earnestness that 
our neighbors were offended, and some would not hear 
him preach. But when Lincoln called for troops to 
invade the South he exclaimed: "That ends it. If he 
can do that he can do anything." So, like all the rest, 
he was forced to take sides, and with us there was but one 
side to take. 

Two paramount considerations controlled the South 
in taking the step of secession. First, the growing 
hostility of the North to the South, and, second, the 
attitude of the North toward the Constitution. Let us 
look at these reasons. First, the hostility of the North. 
The hostility of the North is seen in three things : First, 
opposition to the territorial expansion of the South ; 

[45] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

second, its persistent attack on the local institutions of 
the South, and, third, continued misrepresentation and 
defamation of the people of the South. 

First, the North was hostile tO' the territorial expan- 
sion of the South. There was no particular or strenuous 
opposition to "the Louisiana Purchase" under Jeffer- 
son's administration, because the two sections were still 
friendly, and the mutual jealousy had hardly had time 
to begin its evil work. But it soon began to show itself, 
and as we have seen, Josiah Quincy declared the admis- 
sion of Louisiana would be a just cause for the dissolu- 
tion of the Union. It wrought immense mischief Avhen 
the boundary of the Louisiana Purchase was settled. 
The American minister in INladrid had secured the con- 
sent of Spain to recognize the Rio Grande as the 
southern boundary instead of the Sabine River. This 
alanned New England. Such an immense expansion of 
Southern territory would never do. To prevent it, Presi- 
dent Adams had the negotiations transferred from 
Madrid to Washington. Once there, it was easy to hint 
to the Spanish minister that if he would contend for it 
he could make the Sabine the line. He was not slow to 
take the hint. So New England statesmanship, through 
hostility to Southern expansion, deliberately gave back 
Texas to Spain. When Andrew Jackson discovered the 
facts, he went to work to recover what would have been 
ours but for the opposition of New England. He sent 
Houston to Texas to foment a revolt from JMexico. 
When Texas, after winning her independence, sought 
admission into the Union, New England earnestly 
opposed it. It succeeded only by the skin of the teeth, 
and through Jackson's vigor. England was offering 
Texas great inducements to get a naval base at Galves- 

[46] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

ton. Once fortified there, and in league with Texas, 
England would have planted herself squarely across the 
path of Southern advance. Houston had about exhausted 
his influence with the Texas Legislature. New England 
opposition to annexation was about to throw Texas into 
the arms of Great Britain. A man was dispatched by 
Houston from Nacogdoches, then the Capital of Texas, 
on horseback, to Jackson at Nashville, Tenn., to infonn 
Jackson that if Congress hesitated any longer the treaty 
with England would become a fact. Jackson rushed a 
messenger on horseback to Louisville, Ky., then up the 
Ohio to Pittsburgh, thence to Washington, and at the 
last moment thwarted New England and prevailed on 
Congress to agree to the annexation of Texas. How 
absurd it is for any Southerner, in view of these facts, 
especially any Texan, to sing the hymn of Dr. Smith — 

"My country, 'tis of thee. 
Sweet land of liberty, 

Of thee I sing! 
Land where my fathers died. 
Land of the Pilgrims' pride," and so on. 

Neither Dr. Smith, nor any of his people, had any 
"pride" in the South, and so far from having any pride 
in Texas, they were moving heaven and earth to keep it 
from becoming a part of our "country." It is a fact, 
whether you like for it to be told or not. When that 
song is sung in my home, I always teach m}^ childi^en to 
substitute the word "Patriot" for the word "Pilgrim." 
Respect for those rugged old Pilgrims who were trying 
to get up out of their graves to prevent Texas from 
coming into the Union forbids that we should include 
that fair land in the "IMy country" of Dr. Smith's song. 

[47] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

Every step of Southern expansion to the Pacific was 
bitterl}^ opposed by the North. Deny it, who can ! 

Now, there was no such liostility on the part of the 
South toward Northern expansion. On the contrary, 
Virginia gave to the North a territory almost the size of 
Texas. When the War of the Revolution closed, Vir- 
ginia had a vahd claim to "the Northwest Territory." 
But with patriotic devotion to the whole country she 
ceded her claim to the newly made Union ; and out of 
that territory was formed the great States of Ohio, 
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, so that Vir- 
ginia won the proud title from the patriotic heart of 
America in the good old days of "Mother of States and 
of statesmen." But this generosity was soon forgotten 
in the growing hostility to the whole South. 

This hostility of the North expressed itself, secondly, 
in the persistent attack on the local institutions of the 
South, and especially of slavery. They began, and 
maintained, a systematic anti-slavery agitation. They 
held public meetings to denounce the South and political 
conventions to organize against it. They printed num- 
berless papers and pamphlets devoted to stirring up and 
educating Northern public sentiment to hate the South. 
They secretly circulated documents throughout the South 
inciting the slaves to revolt. They formed societies and 
parties to make war on the Southern system of social 
life. They employed the most gifted orators to address 
the masses and fire their passions against the Southern 
people. By speech and pen, in ten thousand ways, they 
pushed their hostile crusade against the South. Finally 
it culminated in its natui'al and proper result in the 
attempt of John Brown to incite a race war among tlie 
Southern slaves. John Brown was an anarchist. Yet 

[48] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

he was a hero in the North because he impersonated the 
general feehng of hostility to the South. lie is a hero 
still, as for that. They build costly monuments to keep 
his memory safe, when it ought to rot in eternal oblivion. 
In his famous Cooper Institute speech Mr. Lincoln said 
this about John Brown's mad invasion of Virginia : 
"That affair, in its philosoph}^, corresponds with the 
many attempts at the assassination of kings and emper- 
ors. An enthusiast ventures the attempt which ends 
in little else than his own execution." This estimate of 
Lincoln, which I believe is correct, put John Brown in 
the class of Gitteau, the insane wretch who murdered 
Garfield. According to Lincoln, it is the "soul" of an 
assassin that "goes marching on," and monuments are 
erected and peans sung to the arch anarch of our his- 
tory. Lincoln classed John Brown with J. Wilkes Booth, 
his own assassin. The North honors Brown and damns 
Booth! Can any one wonder that the South felt that 
her most sacred rights were in danger when the North 
applauded John Brown as a national hero, and held him 
up as a glorified "martyr" and representative of the 
spirit and purposes of the North? What might we not 
expect when the political party that claimed him as its 
forerunner acquired the vast powers of the Federal 
government ! 

The hostihty of the North is seen in the continued 
misrepresentation and defamation of the Southern peo- 
ple. I need cite only one example. It is by one of their 
greatest men, on whose memory, when he died, our own 
great Lamar, sounding the first note of returning fra- 
ternity over the subsiding floods of sectional hatred, 
pronounced a noble eulogy. If such a man could use 
such violent, intemperate, vulgar, and insulting speech 

[49] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

on the floor of the United States Senate, what might not 
be expected from speakers who neither knew or cared 
for the ethics of public discussion ? I refer to the speech 
of Charles Sumner on "The Crime Against Kansas," 
w^hicli provoked the assault of Preston S. Brooks, mem- 
ber of Congress from South Carolina. Every sentence 
is vituperative. Every epithet is vitriolic. The whole 
speech is an irruption of vulgar malice. To' use his own 
language, he "discharged the loose expectoration of his 
speech" upon the South and her people. While it was 
an unfortunate thing, I do not wonder that Brooks 
chastised him. There is a limit to the license of abuse. 
Human nature can stand so much and no more, and 
Sumner went far over the line. But as in the case of 
John Brown, the North hailed in Sumner an exponent 
of her sentiments and denounced Brooks as "a cowardly 
assassin" and his State as a barbarous people. In doing 
this they made the speech of Sumner an expression of 
Northern sentiment ; and if that speech does not slander 
the South I do not know the difference between light 
and darkness. It smells of brimstone! 

I said one example of this misrepresentation would 
serve my purpose, but I must cite another, and a far 
more influential one. I mean the book, "Uncle Tom's 
Cabin," by Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe. Before the 
West was settled the wide prairies were covered with 
luxuriant grass. After a long season of rainless weather 
a match carelessly thrown into the dry stubble would 
start a conflagration that would sweep in flaming fury 
over the whole country. Nothing could stop it, or stand 
before it. It carried ruin and death to man and beast 
in its path and left a blackened desert behind it. I can 
think of nothing that so appropriately illustrates the 

[50] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

effect of Mrs. Stowe's book on the public opinion of the 
world. It was a lighted match thrown into the dry 
stubble of the world's thought and set it on fire. ]Millions 
of people, who would never read a political speech, or 
care for the argument of statesmen, read this vile book, 
and got the idea that the Southern people were a set of 
wicked barbarians, whose chief delight was in hunting 
runaway slaves and inflicting tortures upon them. Of 
course, the book was false to the core ; but the millions 
who read it believed it was true. 

Over yonder in the church, visible from where I 
sit, there is a marble tablet on the wall. The inscription 
on it tells us that it is sacred to the memory of Bishop 
William Capers, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South. Among many other things for which his memory 
is revered is the fact that he was "the founder of the 
missions to the slaves." So at the very time that Mrs. 
Stowe was writing her libellous account of slavery, and 
making millions believe the Southern people were little 
better than savages, and investing her slanders with 
the romantic charms of a pharasaical philanthropy, 
Southern ministers of the Gospel, led by this godly 
Bishop, were telling these poor benighted Negroes, torn 
from their native land by Yankee cupidity, the story 
of a Savior's love, and leading thousands of them to 
faith in Christ. Not one word does Mrs. Stowe tell 
of this missionary work among the slaves of the South. 
Her purpose was to blacken and defame us, and she 
succeeded in doing it. Her book, "translated into evciy 
civilized tongue, became world hterature." The effect 
of this book in England in preventing the recognition 
of the Confederacy was very great. General Charles 
Francis Adams says: "There was but one way of 

[51] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

accounting for it. Uncle Tom and Legree were respec- 
tively doing their work. So it was that The Index (a 
paper that was pro-Southern) despairingly at last 
declared: 'The emancipation of the negro from the 
slavery of Mrs. Beecher Stowe's heroes is the one idea 
of the millions of British who know no better and do 
not care to know.' Like the Cherubim with the flaming 
sword, this sentiment stood between Lancashire and cot- 
ton, and the inviolate blockade made possible the sub- 
jugation of the Confederacy. With Pyrrhus, it was 
a tile thrown by a woman from a housetop ; with Lee 
it was a book issued by a woman from a printing press ! 
The missiles were equally fatal." 

When you calmly reflect on all this, you will doubt- 
less admit that the South had good reason to be alarmed. 
The North was growing more powerful all the time, and 
its spirit more aggressive and intolerant. The hostility 
to the South, and stern detennination to interfere with 
its domestic condition. Constitution or no Constitution, 
justified the South in seeking to protect itself by resoii:- 
ing to the legal right of secession. At any rate, the 
vast majority beheved that their rights were no longer 
safe in a Union controlled by such hostility. 

But even more than by this hostility, the South was 
influenced by the attitude of the North toward the 
Constitution. 

The Constitution was the basis of the Union. To 
attack that Avas to attack the foundation. To ignore 
it was to throw down all the barriers to tyranny, and 
in the place of constitutional government to erect an 
irresponsible despotism. That is exactly what the 
North did. I affirm, and will prove, that the North 



59. ] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

spurned and repudiated the Constitution. They 
denounced it and they disobeyed it. 

They denounced it. Here is the proof: 

Wm. H. Seward, one of their foremost men, and 
afterward one of Lincoln's cabinet, said: "There is a 
higher law than the Constitution which regulates our 
authority over the domain. Slavery must be abolished, 
and we must do it." Charles Sumner said: "The fugi- 
tive slave act is filled with horror; we are bound to dis- 
obey this act." 

William Lloyd Garrison said: "The Union is a lie. 
The American Union is an imposture, a covenant with 
death and an agreement with hell. We are for its over- 
throw ! Up with the flag of disunion, that we may have 
a free and glorious republic of our own." 

Joshua R. Giddings said: "I look for^vard to the day 
when there shall be a servile insurrection in the South; 
when the black man, armed with British bayonets, and 
led on by British officei^s, shall assert his freedom and 
wage war of extermination against his master. And, 
though we may not mock at their calamity nor laugh 
when their fear cometh, yet we will hail it as the dawn 
of a political millennium." 

Anson P. Burlingame said: "The times demand and 
we must have an antislavery Constitution, an antislavery 
Bible, and an antislavery God." 

This proof might be extended indefinitely ; but these 
testimonies from representative men is sufficient. They 
express the true sentiment of the North, and disclose 
an utter contempt for the Union on the basis of the 
Constitution. 

They disobeyed the Constitution. Here is the proof: 

[53] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

The Constitution recognized the right of property 
in slaves and protected it. If it had not done so, those 
States where slavery existed when the Union was formed 
would never have entered it. Now there were four 
million slaves in the South, and they represented 
at the lowest computation a billion dollars' worth of 
property. Of course slavery was an evil. All recog- 
nized that. But the North was as responsible for it 
as the South. While it was an evil, it was not all evil. 
As a rule the Negroes were treated kindly, and cruel 
treatment was the exception. The unanswerable proof 
of this is the fact thai during the war the great mass 
of the slaves were faithful to their masters, and helped 
us in the struggle, and many after they were free, pre- 
ferred to stay with "their people" to going with their 
liberators. It had its benefits for the slave, too, for it 
trained ignorant Africans to habits of civilized life, and 
was a great industrial school for the race. All of this 
did not justify the institution of slavery, but it did 
mitigate its evil, and give the lie to' the Northern state- 
ments about it. It was easy to say it ought to be abol- 
ished. ]\Iultitudes in the South believed that, and but 
for the unwarranted interference of the North, it is 
highly probable the way Avould have been found for the 
gradual liberation of the slaves. General Lee liberated 
some Negroes belonging to his family while the war was 
going on. But right or wrong, the South had over a 
billion dollars invested in this form of property, and it 
was protected by the Constitution. Besides the whole 
social, civic and industrial life of the South was inex- 
tricably intertwined with the institution of slavery. To 
suddenly liberate the slaves was to wreck civilization in 
the South, and do more harm than good, as was amply 

[54] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

demonstrated when the North finally did it by the power 
of the sword. Now the cold-blooded pui'pose of the 
North was, Constitution or no Constitution, to suddenly 
destroy this vast property without compensation to the 
owners, and turn loose these four million ignorant 
Negroes as free people upon the South. But to the 
proof that the North disobeyed the Constitution. 

Section 2, of Article IV, of the Constitution, says: 
"No person held to Service or Labor, in one State, 
under the laws thereof, escaping into another State, 
shall, in consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, 
be discharged from such Sei*\dce or Labor, but shall be 
delivered up (italics mine) on Claim of the Party to 
whom such Service or Labor may be done." 

This is the law which no less a man than Charles 
Sumner said, "We are bound to- disobey" it. To quote 
Dr. Curry on this point: "Ten Northern States, with 
impunity, with the approval of such men as Governor 
Chase, afterward Secretary of the Treasury under Mr. 
Lincoln and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, nulli- 
fied the Constitution, declared that its stipulation in 
reference to' the reclamation of fugitives from labor was 
a 'dead letter,' and to that extent they dissolved the 
Union, or made an ex parte change in the tenns upon 
which it was fonned. These States did not fonnally 
secede, but of themselves, without assent of those Mr. 
Jefferson described as 'coparties with themselves to the 
compact,' changed the conditions of union and altered 
the articles of agreement." In short, though the Con- 
stitution expressly agreed that fugitive slaves should 
be given up, the North deliberately said they shall not. 
If that was not disobeying the Constitution, I confess 
I am incapable of understanding in what disobedience 

[55] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

consists. Of course, if they could declare one part of 
the Constitution "a dead letter" because it did not suit 
them, they could abrogate any part of it for the same 
reason. 

In 1850, only two years before his death, Daniel 
Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, made a speech 
which became known as "The Seventh of March Speech." 
I once heard Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, of Boston, deliver 
her really great lecture on "Wendell Phillips and His 
Times." She boasted that she was one of the original 
Abolitionists, and stood by the side of Wendell Pliillips 
when he faced the mobs to plead for the liberation of 
the "cruelly oppressed slave." Referring to' Webster's 
Seventh of March Speech, she said that up toi that time 
Webster Avas the idol of New England. They were 
proud of his fame and felt that in him the Nation had 
a champion that no foe would care to meet, or meeting, 
would rue it forever. But after that speech, the idol 
was toppled in the dust, and the admired champion had 
proved a recreant coward. She said the first effect on 
reading it was a sort of dazed amazement, which was 
succeeded by a sickening revulsion, and that by a violent 
indignation, and Webster was thenceforth regarded as 
a "traitor" who had betrayed the nation's trust. 

Mr. Br3'^an says, in a note on this speech in his "The 
World's Famous Orations," "Curtis, the biographer of 
Webster, admits that this speech met with general dis- 
favor throughout the North." Schurz describes the 
antislavery men as contemplating "the fall of an arch- 
angel." Webster was called " a recreant son of Massa- 
chusetts," "a fallen star," and "a bankrupt politician 
gambling for the presidency," while Whittier, in one of 
his poems, wrote: 

[56] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

"All else is gone ; from those great eyes 
The soul is fled; 
When faith is lost, when honor dies, 
The man is dead. 

Then pay the reverence of old days 

To his old fame ; 
Walk backward with averted gaze 

And hide his shame !" 

Poor Webster ! And what was it that the North called 
"his shame?" What was it that the enlightened North, 
shuddering with horror at the sin of slavery, thought 
put out the light of Webster's "great eyes," exiled his 
"soul" and slew his "honor?" It was Webster's fidelity 
to the Constitution ! It was his conscientious obedience 
to an oath which was equally binding upon every Amer- 
ican citizen. Fidelity to one's oath is, among all civi- 
lized people, regarded as an essential attribute of honor : 
but the North denounced this as "shame" in Webster, 
and called him "a fallen archangel" because he kept 
faith with his oath. If that was not putting darkness 
for light I will give it up. Let us see what Webster 
said, that we may clearly understand how completely 
the North, in its rage against the South, had repudiated 
the basic principles of political morality on which the 
Union was founded. Here is what he said: "But I 
will allude to other complaints of the South, and espe- 
cially to one which has, in my opinion, just foundation; 
and that is, that there has been found at the North, 
among individuals and among legislators, a disinclina- 
tion to perform fully their constitutional duties in 
regard to the return of persons bound to service who 
have escaped into the free States. In that respect, the 

[57] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

South, in my judgment, is right, and the North is 
wrong. Every member of every Northern Legislature 
is bound by oath, like every other officer in the country, 
to support the Constitution of the United States ; and 
the article of the Constitution which says to these States 
that they shall deliver up fugitives from service, is as 
binding in honor and conscience as any other article. 
No man fulfils his duty in any Legislature who sets him- 
self to find excuses, evasions, escapes, from this consti- 
tutional obligation. I have always thought that the 
Constitution addressed itself to the Legislatures of the 
States or to the States themselves. It says that those 
persons escaping to other States "shall be delivered up," 
and I confess I have always been of the opinion that it 
was an injunction upon the States themselves. When 
it is said that a person escaping into another State, and 
coming therefore within the jurisdiction of that State, 
shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import of the 
clause is, that the State itself, in obedience to the Con- 
stitution, shall cause him to be delivered up. That is 
my judgment. I have always entertained that opinion, 
and I entertain it now." 

That was clear and true and brave. Yet the saying 
it, probably, cost Webster the prize of the presidency 
of the United States, and the North regarded him as "a 
fallen archangel." The reference to fallen archangels 
suggests a different construction to me. If to' stand 
firm for the truth amidst universal rebellion against it, 
if to be loyal to one's allegiance when all others are 
throAving it off, if to keep faith with conscience — if this 
be noble, then Webster in the United States Senate on 
the seventh of March, 1850, reminds me of one higher 
than an archangel ; the Seraph, 

[ 58 ] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

"Abdiel, faithful found 
Among the faithless, faithful only he; 
Among the innumerable false, unmoved. 
Unshaken, unseduced, unterrified, 
His loyalty he kept, his love, his zeal ; 
Nor number, nor example, with him wrought 
To swerve from truth, or change his constant mind, 
Though single." 

But this bitterness toward Webster emphasizes the 
attitude of the North toward the Constitution. To 
quote Dr. Curry again, in his "Civil Histoi-y of the 
Government of the Confederate States," a book, by the 
way, that ought tO' be read by every one whoi desires to 
understand the truth about! the War for the Union, 
"The Northern States, not in the regular prescribed 
form, but in the most irregular, illegal, and contemptu- 
ous manner, by ecclesiastical action and influence, by 
legislative and judicial annulment, by public meetings, 
by pulpit and press, by mobs and conspiracies and secret 
associations, made null and void a clear mandate of the 
Constitution, protective of Southern property, and 
adopted as an indispensable means for securing the 
entrance of the Southern States into the Union." They 
disobeyed the Constitution. 

Now in 1860 Mr. Lincoln was elected President by 
the party that had for twenty-five years fostered this 
hostility to the South and gloried in this disobedience 
to the Constitution. What more reasonable than to 
suppose that the principles of the party would control 
the policy of the administration? Can any one wonder 
or blame the South for taking steps to protect itself 
from the danger that menaced it? They must do it in 
the Union or out of it. For an honorable people this 

[59] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

offered no alternative. They had no right while remain- 
ing in the Union to resist its authority ; but they had 
the legal right to withdraw from the Union, and since 
the government had now passed into' the hands of a party 
bent on the destruction of Southern rights, they were 
fully justified in the step of secession. 

I think Lincoln was a sincere man, and honestly felt it 
to' be his duty to resoii to anns ; but he was the chosen 
candidate of a party tliat had proclaimed its virtual 
independence of the Constitution. And did not Lincohi 
soon show that he was in full accord with his party, so 
far as the constitutional limitations on his authority 
M^ere concerned? What constitutional right did he have 
to call for troops to invade the South? "If he could 
do that, he could do anything." Virginia evidently 
thought so. She voted down secession until Lincoln's 
call for troops. That ended all debate, for if he could 
do that he could do anytliing. And he did do a world 
of things without warrant of law. He justified his 
course on the ground that it was necessary "to save the 
L^nion." Here is his language: "I felt that measures 
otherwise unconstitutional might become lawful by becom- 
ing indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution 
through the preservation of the nation. Right or 
wrong, I assumed this ground, and I now avow it." 
That was heroic, and success made it patriotic ; but if it 
was not revolutionary I have yet to learn the meaning 
of the word. It was the bold assumption of autocratic 
and illegal power under the plea of public necessity, 
which we denounce as tyranny in Napoleon and applaud 
as patriotism in Lincoln. A man knows very little of 
human nature who would expect an intelligent, high- 
spirited, and liberty-loving people, such as the Southern 

[60] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

people of that generation were, to yield one iota to such 
tyrannical authority. To resist it to the utmost became 
the sacred duty of every freeman. 

But Lincoln and his party did unconstitutional things 
which they could not justify on the ground of military 
necessity, such, for example, as the admission of West 
Virginia into the Union. What warrant of law did they 
have for that.^ According to the theory of the Union, 
which they had a million of men in arms to enforce, a 
State could not secede. Virginia had not withdrawn 
from the Union, and those of her citizens who were 
resisting the Federal government were in rebellion. The 
relation of the State of Virginia to the Union, therefore, 
was exactly what it was before its claim to have left it. 
So when they divided Virginia they divided a State 
which was as much in the Union as Ohio. Where was 
the authority for that.-^ The truth is they had neither 
law nor precedent, nor the excuse of military necessity ; 
it was pure, unadulterated despotism — the right of the 
sword. West Virginia is the bastard of the Union, con- 
ceived in sin and born in iniquity. And its admission 
into the Union contradicted all the North had proclaimed 
about secession, for while they hurled a million men 
against the South to prevent the secession of A'irginia, 
and justified it on the ground that secession was a polit- 
ical heresy utterly ruinous to the American Union, they 
allowed West Virginia to secede from Virginia. West 
Virginia is the monumental proof that the I^orth in 
1860 had thrown the Constitution to the winds, and 
ruled the country as a despotism. The South may be 
overthrown, but it may be counted on to resist such 
lawless exercise of power as long as Anglo-Saxon blood 
flows in her veins. 

[61] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

I have said far more than enough to prove my point, 
and will only make a brief reference to the despotism 
of the North after the close of the war. Even so fair 
and conservative a judge as General Charles Francis 
Adams says: "As an historic fact, the Constitution was 
then suspended. It was suspended by an act of an 
irresponsible Congress, exercising revolutionary but 
unlimited powers over a large section of the common 
country." I think General Adams' words apply to 
Congress from the day the Republican party assumed 
the powers of government. As a political party it was 
utterly lawless. 

I conclude, therefore, that the Southern States had 
the right to secede in 1860, that the circumstances fully 
justified them in appealing to that right for protection 
against the hostility of the North ; and that the North 
had no constitutional right to coerce the seceded States 
to return to the Union, but appealed to the right of 
revolution to force upon the States a new and different 
construction of the Constitution from its original mean- 
ing. 

Whether the North was justified in this revolution or 
not ; whether a national government, with its highly 
centralized power, is a better form of government than 
the federal republic contemplated by Washington and 
his compatriots ; whether republican institutions and the 
principles of popular government are compatible with 
the imperialistic character implicit in the present organ- 
ization of the national government — these are questions 
that are outside of this discussion. Neither am I con- 
cerned with the merits of the doctrine of secession. 
That has nothing to do with the case. My single aim 
has been to show that the right of secession existed in 

[62] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

1860, and to explain the reasons why the Southern peo- 
ple resorted to it for self-protection against the North, 

The American Union has been aptly likened to the 
solar system, in which the stability and harmony of the 
system depends on the balance of the centripetal and 
centrifugal forces. If the centripetal force overbal- 
ances the centrifugal, the planets will fall into the sun, 
and ruin will ensue. If the centrifugal overbalances the 
centripetal, the planets will fly apart, and the system 
will be wrecked. As applied to the Union, the national 
idea represents the centripetal force, and the doctrine of 
State's rights represents the centrifugal force, and the 
perpetual problem of statesmanship is to maintain these 
forces in equal balance. If the national principle is 
carried tooi far, it will destroy the State and the govern- 
ment will become a centraHzed despotism. If the prin- 
ciple of State's right be carried too far, it will dissolve 
the Union and involve everything in chaos. It is one of 
the wonders of political history, and one of the noblest 
evidences of the capacity of the American people for 
self-government, that the Constitution sui-^aved the 
shock of the war, and after having been completely sus- 
pended for a time, has again become the paramount 
authority in the Nation. Nor is there any sign of the 
times more encouraging to the heart of the patriot than 
the political philosophy which expresses the new national 
consciousness in the maxim, "An indissoluble Union of 
indestructible States." The integrity of the State is as 
essential to the Nation as the solidarity of the Union. 

When the Americans resolved not to submit to British 
oppression, Pitt exclaimed : "I glory in the resistance of 
America. Three million Americans who would submit 
to the unjust measures of the British Ministry would be 

[63] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

fit instruments with which to' enslave the rest." Look- 
ing back over the history of our country, so far from 
condemning the South for her course in 1860, I glory 
in her resistance to the North. A people who would 
have submitted to the lawless and unconstitutional acts 
of the Republican party of that period could never have 
made the magnificent country Ave have today. The bap- 
tism of blood consecrated the whole nation. Each side 
learned to respect the other for the earnestness of their 
convictions and the courage with wliich they maintained 
them. Both sides are satisfied with the final adjustment. 

Does any one ask why this discussion, if all are satis- 
fied with the result? If the issues were definitely and 
forever settled, why not let the curtain fall, and the 
whole subject pass into a happy oblivion? There are 
three reasons for not forgetting the past. 

First, though the issues were settled, the principles 
remain and are as 'vital today as they were then. 
America has not yet solved her political problems, and 
from no period of her history has she more or more 
important lessons to learn than from the great struggle 
for constitutional government of these United States. 
No such Republic as ours ever existed before. 

A second reason is that an appreciation of the past 
is the inspiration of the present. A great man has told 
us "that no people Avho are Indifferent to what their 
ancestors did are likely to do anything for wliich their 
posterity will have reason to be proud." The present 
is the product of the past. The men, both in the North 
and the South, who are the leaders in the splendid 
progress of today are men who have drunk deep at the 
fountain of their country's history. Patrick Henry 
was right when he said : "I have but one lamp by which 

[64] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

my feet are guided ; and tliat is the lamp of experience. 
I know of no way of judging the future but by the 
past." A flippant disregard for the past is the sure 
sign of a fool. When a man, prominent in poHtical life, 
said in his rancid book, "The Southerner," "About the 
Confederacy and the war I cared not a rap," he made a 
sorry spectacle of his lack of self-respect, to say nothing 
of his lack of respect for history. The idea of a sen- 
sible man saying he does not care "a rap" for the stu- 
pendous event in American history, the War for the 
Union ! One wonders how he ever climbed so high with 
such a narrow mind. 

A third reason is a sacred reverence for the memory 
of the dead. They were bone of our bone and flesh of 
our flesh. From them we received our earthly Ixiing. 
They poured out their life-blood for our sake. To what 
lower degree of baseness could we sink than to forget 
them, and let the sordid concerns of a material pros- 
perity obliterate the sentiment that reveres them. 
What more ignoble cowardice could we show than to 
allow the youth of the South to quietly imbibe the opin- 
ion that, if not traitors to their country, they were 
deluded and reckless revolutionists ! Could we more 
effectually renounce our claim to be patriots than to 
quench the hallowed fire of admiration for them as the 
martyrs of liberty! Perish the thought that it is pos- 
sible to forget them as long as their blood shall flow 
in our veins ! 

"Where shall their dust be laid? 
On the mountain's starry crest. 
Whose kindling lights are signals made 
To the mansions of the blest: 

[65] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

No, no, no! 
For bright though the mountain be. 
It has no gem in its diadem 
Like the hf e-spark of the free ! 

"Where shall their dust be laid? 
On the ocean's stormy shore, 
With wailing woods at their backs arrayed, 
And shouting seas before: 
No, no, no! 
For, deep as its waters be, 
They have no depth like the faith which fired 
The martyrs of the free ! 

"Where shall their dust be laid? 
By the valley's greenest spot. 
As it ripples down, in leaps of shade. 
To the blue forget-me-not: 
No, no, no! 
For, green as the valley be, 
It has no flower like the bleeding-heart 
Of the heroes of the free ! 

"Or where muffled pageants march. 

Through the spired and chiming pile, 
To the chancel-rail of its oriel arch, 
Up the organ-flooded aisle: 
No, no, no! 
For, grand as the minsters be, 
They could never hold all the knightly liosts 
Of Jackson and of LEE ! 

"Where shall their dust be laid? 
In the uni of the Human Heart, 

[66] 



THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT. 

Where its purest dreams are first displayed, 
And its passionate longings start : 
Yes, yes, yes ! 
By memory's pictured wave. 
Is a living shrine for the Dead we love. 
In the land they died to save." 

We read in the classic legends of old Rome that there 
was an earthquake which opened a wide chasm in the 
very heart of the city. The people tried in vain to fill 
it up. At last an oracle declared it would never be 
filled until the most precious thing in Rome was thrown 
into its depths. A brave young man, Marcus Curtius, 
hearing the oracle, said that courage was the most 
precious thing in Rome. He clad himself in full annor, 
mounted his steed, and calling aloud upon the gods to 
witness that he devoted himself to liis country's weal, 
he made his horse leap into the yawning gulf. The 
legend declared that the chasm instantly closed. A 
greater chasm rent the mighty republic of America than 
ever cracked the foundation of Rome. The people tried 
in vain tO' fill it up. It would not close until the most 
precious thing in the republic, the glorious manhood of 
America, was thrown into its depths. Legions of noble 
men, the flower of the North and South alike, like 
Marcus of old, clad in full arjnor, leaped into its yawn- 
ing abyss, and the bloody chasm closed above them 
forever. 

So may it be with our great republic! 



[67] 



